WSPP287 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001075 Final Environmental Assessment-Chapter 2-Alternatives A cofferdam and or bypass channel may be used to direct the river around the construction area and river flows would not be reduced. Before construction, Reclamation and the contractor would obtain necessary approvals required by the Clean Water Act. Reclamation would request Section 404 authorization for the fish passage under Regional General Permit No. 057 for projects that benefit recovery of endangered fishes. A separate Section 404 authorization would likely be needed for construction of the whitewater features. If discharging water for construction dewatering is needed, the contractor would obtain a Section 402 permit. Reclamation would also coordinate construction activities within the tOO-year floodplain with Mesa County. Construction would be scheduled during low river conditions in the fall of2005. Reclamation estimates the total costs for dam removal to be between $1,900,000 and $2,900,000 depending on mitigation measures selected for impacts to the Ute Water pump plant. The cost includes all preconstruction activities, permitting, construction, construction administration, and mitigation measures. Operation and Maintenance If the dam is removed to restore natural fish passage, no regularly scheduled actions related to operation and maintenance is anticipated. The passage would operate as a natural river channel, so maintenance would be minimal. Water Supply Because of downstream senior water rights, a flow of at least 520 cfs is present in this reach of the river under all but the most severe drought conditions. The Service also has up to 37,650 acre-feet of upstream reservoir storage water available for endangered fish uses in drought years. Therefore, no measures would be needed to augment existing water supplies to enable fish to swim upstream after dam removal. Selection of Recommended Alternative Reclamation has selected the Downstream Rock Fish Passage with Whitewater Recreational Features Alternative as its recommended alternative contingent on securing permits and easements from affected land owners, available non-Recovery Program funding for the white water features, local govemmental sponsorship to assume liability, maintenance, and obtain public access for the whitewater features. Reclamation and the Recovery Program believe this alternative would best meet project purposes while protecting existing upstream uses and providing desired public safety and recreation. The alternative also minimizes the need for fish passage operation and maintenance. 22